Is Jack the Ripper suspect buried in a Leavesden cemetery? (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Lost remembrance book could hold key to whether Jack the Ripper suspect is buried in a Leavesden cemetery
5:30pm Sunday 14th October 2012 in News
By Rebecca Perring, Reporter
Martin Brooks
A lost remembrance book could determine whether a man suspected to be Jack the Ripper is buried in a Leavesden cemetery, a local historian has said.
Aaron Kosminski- a prime suspect in the Ripper case, died as a patient at Leavesden Asylum in 1919 after being sent there in 1894.
The tale came to light after the Head of the CID at the time, Sir Robert Anderson, memoirs were published in 1910 which claimed the police knew the identity of Jack the Ripper.
Aaron Kosminski had been identified by a witness, who refused to give evidence against him, so instead the suspect was locked away in an asylum, where he claimed to be hearing voices.
The man put in charge of the Ripper case was Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, who passed down the book of memoirs and again confirmed Aaron Kosminski had been put in Leavesden Asylum.
Mr Kosminski, who was born around 1864, is listed in the 1901 census at Leavesden Asylum.
The shocking nature of the infamous Whitechapel murders over the autumn of 1888 saw the gruesome mutilation of five or possibly six prostitutes in the East End of London and the unknown serial killer has never been traced.
The answer to whether or not he is buried in the north cemetery in Leavesden Country Park lies in an untraced book of remembrance which bears the names of all those buried in the cemetery.
Martin Brooks, chair of the Leavesden history association, said: “This is an amazing part of the overall history of Leavesden hospital.
“While we are trying to trace the whereabouts of the remembrance book, which holds all the details of the people buried here, whether or not Aaron Kosminski is buried here will remain a mystery.
“It is thought he died in Leavesden hospital, so it could be possible he was buried in the north cemetery.
“It would be great to trace the books whereabouts to solve this mystery and to also answer the questions of those people that contact me knowing their loved ones were in Leavesden hospital and wish to find out if they are buried here in Leavesden too.”
In a case study compiled to show Mr Kosminski as a prime suspect of Jack the Ripper, information suggests he was a Polish Jew and a hairdresser and resident of Whitechapel.
He was known to have been sexually abused by his mother and had a known hatred for women, especially prostitutes, which modern day criminal profilers and psychologist agree that sexual abuse at an early age could lead to the type of psychopathic behaviour exhibited by serial killers.
Mr Brooks added: “Without the remembrance book we won’t be able to answer the question and it will remain a mystery. “
Historical research by Mr Brooks has also found an unknown third cemetery in Leavesden Country Park.
Comments(19)
garston tony
says...
12:48pm Mon 15 Oct 12
I wonder how much information that we produce and hold today will still be around in 100 years, the electronic form allows us to store so much but it is quite fragile at the same time
Roy Stockdill
says...
1:30pm Mon 15 Oct 12
Martin Brooks says: "It is thought he died in Leavesden hospital, so it could be possible he was buried in the north cemetery."
If Mr Brooks is a pukka historian, then why doesn't he do the obvious thing and obtain Kosminski's death certificate? There is little doubt he did die at Watford in 1919 since the fact is recorded in the General Register Office death indexes. I can even give him the reference: Aaron Kozminski, died in the Jan-March quarter of 1919, aged 54, volume 3A, page 1273.
The certificate should reveal precisely where he died and will cost £9.25 from the General Register Office online or from Watford Register Office. If the informant was a member of the staff at Leavesden, then that would confirm that Kozminso did die there. If that was the case, then it does seem likely he was buried there also.
Kozminski is found in both the censuses of 1901 and 1911, having been transferred to Leavesden from Colney Hatch in 1894.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
1:39pm Mon 15 Oct 12
Roy Stockdill wrote:That told him Roy lol
As said above, this is scarcely a new story. Aaron Kozminski appears in just about every book I have ever read on the Ripper murders and he is widely found in Ripper stories on the internet. Some writers consider him a major suspect, others dismiss him as not being involved in the killings. But that's the problem with Jack the Ripper - every so-called expert who has ever written about the case has his own pet theories!
Martin Brooks says: "It is thought he died in Leavesden hospital, so it could be possible he was buried in the north cemetery."
If Mr Brooks is a pukka historian, then why doesn't he do the obvious thing and obtain Kosminski's death certificate? There is little doubt he did die at Watford in 1919 since the fact is recorded in the General Register Office death indexes. I can even give him the reference: Aaron Kozminski, died in the Jan-March quarter of 1919, aged 54, volume 3A, page 1273.
The certificate should reveal precisely where he died and will cost £9.25 from the General Register Office online or from Watford Register Office. If the informant was a member of the staff at Leavesden, then that would confirm that Kozminso did die there. If that was the case, then it does seem likely he was buried there also.
Kozminski is found in both the censuses of 1901 and 1911, having been transferred to Leavesden from Colney Hatch in 1894.
garston tony
says...
2:16pm Tue 16 Oct 12
The article isnt about revealing this chap as being suspected of being the Ripper but about him being possibly buried at Leavesden cemetary. A death certificate doesn’t state where someone is buried, and Roy how do you know Mr Brooks hasn’t already gotten hold of a copy? You have just assumed he hasn’t just as you have assumed that Kozminski is buried at Leavesden cemetary but surely a 'pukka' historian does their best to verify assumptions which is precisely what Mr Brooks is trying to do by trying to locate that remembrance book.
Its amazing how many times Roy tries to 'tell' people but ends up the one being 'told'.
Roy Stockdill
says...
2:40pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Now, that indicates to me that he hasn't obtained the death certificate for it must surely state the place of death, otherwise he wouldn't have used that form of words. He would have been more emphatic. If in fact he has got Kozminski's death certificate, then it is open to him to say so and put me right!
I am of course well aware that a death certificate does not give the place of burial - more's the pity, it is something the UK genealogical community would love to see - but, as I said, if the informant of the death was a doctor at the hospital or another member of the staff, then that would be added proof that Kozminski died there.
Yes, of course Mr Brooks should go on looking for the missing burial register but I would have thought that getting the death certificate was a pre-requisite and, if in fact he has got a copy, he might tell us so.
You just love trying to trap me, don't you Tony! Well, you will have to get up a little early because I've been in genealogy for some 40 years and know my way round official records like the back of my hand.
No-one has suggest that Aaron Kozminski was Jack the Ripper. As I said earlier, some writers regard him as a major suspect and others dismiss him. What is interesting is that the killing took place in the summer of 1888 and Kozminski was not apparently admitted to Colney Hatch until 1890 or 1891, but there were no more murders in between.
Roy Stockdill
says...
2:43pm Tue 16 Oct 12
garston tony
says...
11:41am Wed 17 Oct 12
Roy Stockdill
says...
1:32pm Wed 17 Oct 12
I have simply stated the facts as I know them to be.....
1) Aaron Kozminski died in Watford in the January-March quarter of 1919 because an entry in the GRO death indexes clearly says so. I even gave the reference, i.e. volume and page number. I see no reason why I should go to the expense myself of obtaining a copy of the death certificate! I suggested to the WO that they should get it.
2) I suggested that Mr Brooks, if he was that interested, should also obtain a copy. The wording of his comment about it being "thought that he (Kozminski) died in Leavesden Hospital" indicated to me that he does not have a copy of the certificate. What other interpretation would you put on those words, then?
3) The above story only says Kozminski was in Leavesden in the 1901 census. He was also there in the 1911 census because I found him, though to be fair to the WO they obviously don't have the expertise that I have in knowing how to search a census, especially for foreign names. In fact, his name was misspelt slightly but I found him by employing various tricks that I know and employ in the course of my trade as a professional genealogist.
4) I made it plain that Kozminski is regarded as a major suspect by some writers and dismissed by others.
How would you quibble with any of the above statements?
garston tony
says...
2:17pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Secondly your actual original (and subsequent) post(s) was obviously an opportunity for you to self publicise and you were doing so by attempting to show Mr Brooks up by saying he was trying to prove something that was already known (that Mr K died in Watford having been at Leavesden hospital for many years) when in fact he is trying to prove something that you yourself only assumed was correct that being that Leavesden cemetery is the burial place of this chap.
Two different things making your dig at the gentleman wrong, but my ire was actually raised by the awful comment from hornet no 12 that you had 'told' Mr Brooks when you had done nothing of the sort.
I'm going to make an assumption as a lay person but going to guess the interest in the Ripper murders isn't just a recent phenomenon and that even in 1919 some people would have been interested in knowing where Mr K was buried for their own reasons. After all relatives of the victims and people associated with the cases would still have been alive at that time. Is it not possible then that the authorities having squirrelled him away out of view would have wanted his place of burial to also remain unknown and therefore his body might not be buried in the obvious place as you assumed Roy but somewhere else unknown?
To be honest the Ripper murders have never held much of an interest to me but I wish Mr Brooks luck in his search, I enjoy history and an active hunt must be exciting at times.
Roy Stockdill
says...
3:57pm Wed 17 Oct 12
That sounds to me like a conspiracy theory, Tony! Since at the last count the number of Ripper suspects stood at something over 100, it would have taken an awful lot of "squirrelling" on the part of the authorities to have disguised the final resting places of all of them.
For instance, the lawyer Montague Druitt, who is considered by some "Ripperologists" to be a more outstanding candidate than Kozminksi (because the murders stopped soon after he drowned himself in the Thames) is known to be buried in the cemetery at Wimborne, Dorset, where he was born.
Over the years I feel sure there must have been many people buried at Leavesden whose graves will never be known because there was no stone or marker. Given the natural curiosity of the historian, I would like to ask Mr Brooks a few questions, i.e. how does he know a book of remembrance exists; when was it last seen, if ever?; is it thought to be still somewhere in the hospital or could it have been given to the county record office?
I would have thought that as well as a book of remembrance, there ought somewhere to be a burial register. I think that was the law even in 1919.
garston tony
says...
9:18am Thu 18 Oct 12
I'm sure the authorities were happy for Mr K to be forgotten whilst he was alive and all I was putting forward was a suggestion that that might have extended to after his death burying him somewhere anonymous. I don’t think its that implausible, from the little I know of the matter I understand a member of the Royal family was implicated and there must have been embarrasment at no one being caught/convicted plus people associated would have still been alive and so on.
Of course its just as likely he is in the cemetery, but that shouldn’t be assumed as fact should it
Roy Stockdill
says...
2:27pm Thu 18 Oct 12
It has been the subject of several films and TV series - one starring Michael Caine, I seem to recall. Another suspect was supposedly Dr William Gull, the royal physician, and yet another theory has it that the murders were the work of freemasons to cover up the alleged royal connection. Prince "Eddy", Queen Victoria's grandson, the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward VII, who was probably insane through contracting syphilis, is another candidate. He was certainly implicated in the infamous Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889 (which involved a homosexual brothel and Post Office messenger boys) but there was no evidence linking him to the Ripper. He might have been king had he lived but he did the nation a favour by dying before his brother who became George V.
Still, conspiracy theories will always have their advocates when the truth is usually much simpler!
garston tony
says...
1:26pm Fri 19 Oct 12
garston tony
says...
2:41pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Roy Stockdill
says...
4:45pm Fri 19 Oct 12
I have never said he must also have been buried there, merely that it was possible or likely. He may still be found to be, we don't know. Where in the updated article does it say he was buried elsewhere?
Honestly, Tony, it's beginning to be pathetic the way in which you try and trap me so frequently. I can only put it down to envy on your part that my knowledge of history - and especially family history and genealogy and how to research records - is clearly superior to yours. Why do you seem to resent my taking part in a debate on a subject which I happen to know quite a lot about, having no fewer than 16 books about the Ripper case in my home library (I've just counted them)?
Roy Stockdill
says...
4:48pm Fri 19 Oct 12
I haven't seen the death certificate, so I don't know how the name is spelt there, but I have been spelling it as KOZMINSKI as it was in the censuses.
garston tony
says...
2:08pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Or alternatively you're more often than not arrogant, have a better than thou attitude and often show little knowledge of a subject yet hold big opinions on them (how's your knowledge of Humanism and big bang/evolutionary theory these days?) and I admit I find it hard to let traits like that go unchallenged. I do find it amusing mind you that you don’t have any self awareness and that your response to challenges usually just makes you look even more pompous.
You may have 16 books on the subject of the Ripper but you've tried to belittle someone in order to puff out your own feathers and in your belittling made and assumption which it appears is incorrect. In gently ribing you about this your response is to turn the arrogance level up to 11!
Roy Stockdill
says...
3:38pm Mon 22 Oct 12
This seems to confirm that Kozminski DID die at Leavesden in 1919 as I maintained. How on earth is that incorrect?
No-one has yet proved whether he was buried there or not. All I said was that it's possible. How is that incorrect, either?
It was a normal thing for asylum patients to be buried in the grounds if there were no relatives to claim the body, just as murderers who were hanged were usually buried in the prison grounds.
The other place I would have suggested looking for a possible burial for Kozminski is North Watford Cemetery but it wasn't opened until 1931. Presumably he wouldn't have been taken to Vicarage Road, but who knows?
As for my books on Jack the Ripper, I have umpteen books on royalty, crime, warfare, military battles, social history, and of course family history and genealogy, plus dozens of reference books. In fact, my office and study are more like a mini branch library than a home! Does that upset you as well?
Raprindanat says...
8:15pm Sun 14 Oct 12
per.../rps.lightersi
de.html